Do you agree with Bacon that we should trust certain kinds of experience when making scientific judgements about the world?
Of course, experience is justifiable when making judgements. We are told by people opposed to religion that we must put all of our faith into other humans, into science, into conclusions made by other people when we are all aware that humans are themselves fallible. The amount of knowledge we are capable of grasping about existence is minute, we are limited in what we can understand, yet time and time again even what we think we know is later on proven incorrect.
How can we put all our faith into science when a large amount of scientific advancement has itself been detrimental to existence? Science led to the atom bomb, it has led a heavily medicated society swallowing unnecessary pills to combat mental health issues – made possible by our anxiety inducing existence of constant stimulation, instant gratification (jouissance), an excessive plethora of unnecessary options.
There is an idiotic conflation with progress and positivity, can you really claim scientific progress is all positive when the individuals engaged in the “research” all have their own biases? Dr Lawrence Krauss has made the point on numerous occasions: scientists all have their own theory and they are determined to prove it right, even if in reality they are wrong. Obviously depending on their status in the scientific world, if they are of a higher level of popularity more attention will be paid to their research than others, people are more likely to defend their argument – to claim this isn’t so is to deny the obvious fact that we are all individually prejudiced in favour of those who we look up to, to beliefs that we hold. I am more inclined to look to Heidegger for answers compared to the hack Bertrand Russell whom didn’t even understand Ludwig Wittgenstein’s argument in Tractus, while others worship Russell like he was a god, and then dismiss Heidegger without even arguing against any points he made.
How can we take science on its word when scientists are not allowed to even broach certain areas for fear of “offence”? Legitimate enquires in science are restricted by activism by people who do not hold degrees in any scientific fields. Race is out of the question, three UN resolutions were instated to prevent the question of race being broached in any field, is this progress? It seems more to be a wall blocking progress. Activists are currently trying to interfere with sex and gender, doctors are getting in trouble for referring to a man as a man. Obese people cannot be called what they are without protests ensuing. How can we put our faith in science if scientists are not allowed to do their jobs? The same issue carries over to the social sciences, crime statistics and so-on. How can we trust those meant to be authorities figures, experts in their field, if honesty and open enquire are not allowed?
People will cast aside stats and academic opinions if they see a yellow car despite someone with a degree telling them it is red.